Re: XML idea

[Fred Kiefer]

Alex Perez wrote:
> > And that's fine, I think.  So long as it's included in the core 
> > download.  People shouldn't have to go download this, download that, 
> > download the other thing, just to get "portable" code to work.
>
> As much as I would personally like to see this happen, it likely never 
> will for a variety of reasons. First of all, this gives the impression 
> that PortabilityKit is part of the GNUstep project, which it is not. Maybe 
> a good compromise might be a script that sits in the root of core/ which 
> would auto-get portabilityKit via CVS. This could present a few lines of 
> test saying that it is not an official part of GNUstep, use, at your own 
> risk, we dont support it, blah blah blah...Would any GNUstep core members 
> care to comment on what they think of this idea?
As much as I like to see diversity, I really don't like the idea of 
forking GNUstep. We already do have myStep, which in my opinion should 
only exist as another GNUstep backend. There is no need to over play the 
differences, that may exist on the amount of Cocoa extensions which 
should be added to GNUstep. Up to now we have been able to find a 
solution for all the contributed code. It is mostly the writing of code, 
that is missing.
What I would like to see here is a bit of configuration for the GNUstep 
libraries. If there is an OpenStep purist, he/she should be able to 
compile GNUstep base and gui with as mininal extensions to the OpenStep 
specification as possible (Here I mean a bit more than the current usage 
of STRICT_OPENSTEP). And a Cocoa aficionado could set another switch to 
get as much support as possible. The rest of us "moderates" would of 
course get the best of two worlds. But here I realize, I must be dreaming.

But than again this is only my point of view. The great thing about free 
software is, that you don't need to agree. If you think, a separate 
protability library is needed, go ahead with it. I wont contribute to 
it, others may.